Chapter 17
165) Do you agree with policy P1 as a basis for identifying and addressing relevant risks when preparing plans? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
No further comment.
166) Are any additional tools or guidance needed to enable better decision-making on contaminated land?
No further comment.
167) Do you agree with the criteria set out in proposed policy P3 as a basis for securing acceptable living conditions and managing pollution? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
Clarification regarding P3(2)(b) would be welcome as to whether air pollutants are solely related to the development in operation or would include such matters as through the development phase. Criteria P3(2)(d) may also require clarification for the purposes of tall structures including wind turbines. The RTPI is concerned that P3(3) contravenes the policy intentions as set out in DM7(1).
168) Do you agree policy P4 makes sufficiently clear how decision-makers should apply the agent of change principle? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
No further comment.
169) Do you agree policy P5 provides sufficient basis for addressing possible malicious threats and other hazards when considering development proposals? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
170) Do you agree that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of development for defence and public protection purposes? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
Whilst the RTPI strongly supports the substantial weight given to the benefits of development for defence and public protection purposes, we note the potential unintended consequences of such a policy. This is particularly around the application of design intentions for public safety that work against permeability across settlements. This is proven a clear tension in recent years due to the application of Secure by Design guidance. In order to address this issue, policy DP3 and the Design and Placemaking PPG should clearly identify matters relating to design and public safety, whereby this policy more usefully be focused on the need to deal with defence related development proposals.
